I don’t think the Republican party is even remotely serious when they talk about the economy.
Filed under: Misc | Tagged: Jokes, Thought of the day |
Author
Recent Comments
septrose14 on Reddit layoffs shelldigger on Thought of the day The Sauciest Duck on Chauvin and Rittenhouse Michael on Chauvin and Rittenhouse Stephen Moreton on Chauvin and Rittenhouse Mele Kalikimaka | Fo… on Merry Christmas Mele Kalikimaka | Fo… on Mele Kalikimaka somdeblahiriyahoocoi… on Thought of the day Michael on Wuhan virus and one last… Quick correction | F… on The A-Unicornist, Bernie Bro…
For the Sake of Science 
And you think Obama is?
One is proposing things that are practical and will get done. The other isn’t.
Obama is thumbing his nose at the economy. You may call the things he wants to do practical, but the science of economics shows them to be useless. But whatever makes you have the tingle up your leg.
when 62% of the public, time after time, says: “no, don’t raise the debt ceiling” than your definition of practical should change.
Instant 40% cut in the size of government. Tell me what the people want again?
I want to give you half credit. You’re right – the GOP isn’t doing enough to make the real cuts to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and the Department of Defense. But then you go around and said the party that tolerates this complete nonsense is better.
I’d love it if you could knock this low-hanging fruit and show you atleast understand whats wrong with JJ Jrs economic solutions.
You must be referring to his “RIGHT to every damn thing you can imagine” rant? As if he doesn’t understand at all how the world works?
The science of economics? Do you mean Laffer curves, voodoo reaganomics, supply-side and the rest of that non-working Republican bullshit? Or maybe the Ron Paul Libertarian laughable nonsense?
Those proposing that stuff should be taken out and shot.
I’m sorry, when was the last time those fancy demand side economics produced anything but debt and misery?
Certainly it makes sense that the solution to economic growth is to (try and) stimulate demand for things without working to increase supply and supposing somehow that won’t raise prices and stifle demand.
Also makes sense that raising taxes too high won’t result in more people doing everything in their power to avoid taxes and thus lowering revenues.
Wait a second… noooooooo, neither one of those things makes much sense! You missed April fools Bob. Better stick to your admirable expertise in being retired. Not to say that any of these things are 100% known facts, but logic is not on your side. I was under the impression that you treasured logic.
Indeed, even Keynes said, “supply creates it’s own demand”.
While he also said the opposite, that, “demand creates it’s own supply”, one can logically assume that if policies are in place that don’t make it easy to achieve that supply, than it won’t work out that way. Particularly if credit is not easily available and investors either don’t have the capital to invest in supply expansions or there is too must risk or too low a margin of return.
We know just by looking at gas prices that demand does not automatically promise increased supply, as you seem to assume. We also know that increased supply ultimately leads to lower prices and increased consumption.
I’m surprised you didn’t bring theology into this somehow, Bob. You’re slipping. Surely those dastardly, fundamentalist, capitalist, Christians are behind it all. No doubt pushing orphans down flights of stairs.
Bob, I never get when people who claim to embrace science shrug off economic science without understanding it.
I don’t know how you justify wanting to have the people you disagree with publicly murdered – perhaps you fancy yourself a demand-side expert.
Very well, then why don’t you prove it for us by telling us what’s wrong with the proposes reductions in the corporate tax rate – why do left wing economists believe the corporate tax rate should be lower? And who pays the corporate tax rate? An informed reader should be able to answer this without too much googling.
You give people lower tax rates, not giant corporations that just hold ‘their’ money. If you do it the wrong way then you get a massive transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich. Please see 1980-2011 for more information.
Also,
Classic rhetoric: take literally something your opponent said figuratively.
Did the rich run in and steal it from the poors mattresses or was this wealth traded for goods and services?
It may be classic rhetoric, but from someone who routinely goes on about the evils of crazy right wingers its not something one should be saying.
Yeah, it’s a total glass-house scenario. I’m the last one to criticize gun-based metaphors in politics, but “taken out and shot” doesn’t leave much to the imagination. It’s not even a metaphor.
The question was not if tax breaks should go to people instead of corporations (That’s actually two of the same thing) It’s why do you disagree with the textbook model of corporate tax rates – including prominent left wing economists like Ezra Klein and Matthew Yglesias? Why don’t you find their arguments compelling? Is there some new development we should be aware of?
It’s that I disagree with the textbook model of capitalism.
You know what, that’s a respectable stance. I don’t agree with it, but if you’re going to hold a contrary view I think it’s admirable that you’re aware its an unorthodox view.
I don’t know if you’re ever hurting for blog topics, but I’d like to read why you disagree with the textbook model and if there’s a rival system you endorse.
Plus I’m sure I’d have something juicy to link to.